You don't seem to know what a remaster is. Most importantly, it's not a remake and the two terms are not interchangeable.

It is literally not a remake, and how is it half assed? I have a low to mid range PC and the game runs smooth as hell, and it's gorgeous.

half assed remake

which is exactly why they called it a remaster. it was never their intention to remake the game.

Personally I think most of the stuff that went wrong with Starfield were design choices related to space travel and many many planets, which won't be an issue with TES of Fallout going forward. So if they stay in their lane I don't see any reason why they can't keep churning out decent titles in those series, even if they maybe don't reach the same heights.

There‘s no Oblivion remake. Go to the Steam Page and carefully read word for word what it is you‘re talking about.

I have no idea what's your complaint are though, and it's not a remake, it's a remaster that is significantly better than a lot of other remaster have to offer. They could've gave us widescreen support, some lighting change, some new horse armour and call it a day, but they somehow able to snap an UE5 rendering on top of gamebryo, some modern QOL, new character models, modern lipsync, while retaining the charm that spawned an entire genre of meme.

There's a reason Witcher 1 isn't getting a remastered but a remake. Gamer these day is so jaded and just can't seems to satisfied with anything, that a witcher 1 remastered will get hated forever.

You think this is a half assed remake? To me this feels like a significant upgrade (and not just to graphics) while maintaining the core experience and I'm kinda shocked at how good it is.

It's a remaster of a game from 2006 with a fresh coat of paint and some QOL changes and that's basically all it ever could be. 70% of the game did not age well and they honestly did the best they could. If they did a complete remake and "modernized" the game all the old-school fans would be pissed. If they kept it as true to the original as possible besides a facelift they'd make it harder for new players to want to pick it up. I feel like a good 7/10 was the best they could shoot for under most circumstances.

And if you ask anyone where Bethesda fell off, depending on which game was their first, they will all give you a different answer. For me Morrowind and Oblivion are the best in the series and that's with over 500 hours in Skyrim. They've been dumbing their games down with each new iteration since the 90s as they try to "modernize" the newest game each time and reach new audiences. Like, good luck playing Morrowind or Daggerfall these days without losing your patience in a matter of hours. And Morrowind especially is barely playable without mods these days.

I still hated Starfield, though. Gave it the old college try and left so underwhelmed I couldn't tell you a damn thing about the story.

Man the negativity. I'm so sick of gamers negativity. It's not even a new game, it's a remaster. you knew what the product was going to be. It's oblivion. We all knew it was oblivion. If you don't like oblivion, why did you buy it?!

I swear to God if they changed it too much I'd be commenting here on a post about how they had no respect for the original. Then we wonder why "they never listen to gamers". Because we bitch and moan about everything.

I think Bethesda has definitely fallen off in recent years, but I am a bit confused by the point this post is getting at. We learned at launch that Oblivion is a remaster, not a remake, and it's just the original game running under the hood with a new coat of paint and some minor tweaks. And it's a pretty high-effort remaster at that.

I just think it's a bad example to use of how the company isn't getting better, when the point of the remaster was to change as little of the core game as possible. It's as good now as it was back then but it's still a 19-year-old game.

Starfield is what should be killing everyone's expectations of Elder Scrolls 6.